| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably summarily dismissed – Applicant claimed upon return from annual leave called into meeting with respondent and summarily dismissed – Applicant’s sister at meeting and confirmed applicant’s version of events – Respondent denied dismissing applicant and argued not taking matter further until had representative – Respondent counterclaimed for damages claimed caused by applicant to well casing and vehicle – Following meeting respondent sent applicant letter alleging serious misconduct and further meeting sought – Applicant declined to respond to letter – 10 days later applicant advised dismissed for serious misconduct – Respondent argued conducted fair disciplinary process and applicant elected not to participate actively in process – Argued “snap” decision to dismiss unlikely because of detrimental impact loss of someone of applicant’s calibre would have on respondent – Also argued applicant’s version of events unreliable because applicant admitted being under stress – Respondent argued applicant’s failure to furnish bore and work books despite repeated requests amounted to serious misconduct – Authority found respondent had not cited reasons for summary dismissal – Found reasons for dismissal deduced by close study of preceding letters – Found alleged reasons for dismissal were failure to produce relevant records, failure to report well casing damage, knowingly using mobile phone when instructed not to, and damaging work vehicle, – Authority found no evidence respondent’s concerns put to applicant as formal warning – Respondent confirmed performance issues related to two projects and did not reflect usual performance – Authority found while employment agreement and job description did not expressly refer to importance of keeping accurate bore and work books, it’s importance not challenged by applicant – Witness to damage done to work vehicle described events as accidental, not intentional – Authority found respondent’s investigation leading to dismissal did not consider witness’ evidence and did not substantiate conclusion damage deliberate – Found instruction applicant not allocated drilling work until records provided was legitimate requirement – However, subsequent conduct not fair and reasonable – Found applicant not on any formal notice of poor performance prior to summary dismissal – Found applicant addressed respondent’s concerns by advising records lost – Authority found respondent’s representation of year long performance issues concerning applicant not credible – Found too great a gap to cross from performance issues to concluding serious misconduct – Found reasonable employer would have clearly communicated serious concerns to employee with notice of expectations – Found respondent’s process abrupt, unfair, and unsubstantiated – Authority also found some allegations flimsy and could have been resolved by simpler means – Dismissal unjustified – Authority found nothing wilful in applicant’s actions to justify counterclaim – REMEDIES – Authority found evidence supporting claim for compensation for distress compelling – Applicant claimed lost relationship, still experiencing stress, referred to counselling service, and facing real prospect of losing home due to financial circumstances – $15,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation appropriate – Applicant entitled to 3 months lost wages – Rig driller |